Facts

The Claimant brought proceedings for breach of a Compromise Agreement as (she said) she had not been in breach of a confidentiality clause. There was clear evidence before the Tribunal that this was not true because she had made various disclosures to third parties.. The Tribunal however declined to award costs on the basis that the Tribunal thought she had had to bring the proceedings, as the employer had alleged that she had breached the clause.

The decision was appealed by the employer and the Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed with the Tribunal. As the Claimant knew her assertions were false it was not necessary that the Claimant brought such proceedings. What matters was whether or not the Claimant had, or had not, approached the essential factual matters honestly and reasonably.

The EAT reversed the Tribunal’s decision on costs and ordered the Claimant to pay her ex-employer’s legal costs.

Comment

Whilst exaggeration and dishonesty are sins that can apply equally to both Respondents and Claimants in Employment Tribunal cases, in practice (in our experience) disgruntled ex-employees (particularly those without legal representation) are often found to be more sinner than sinned against. The more robust line that Tribunals are increasingly taking on costs is to be welcomed and MILS often rigorously pursue costs applications where we feel our clients have been subject to unreasonable or vexatious behaviour.